Search This Blog

Or. 21, rule 54,66 and T.P. Act Gift - No mutation - whether the estate of deceased debtor ? = Estate of Deceased debtor - Gift in year 1965 infavour of wife but no mutation of entries - No proof of acceptance of Gift - it forms part of estate - liable to be sold in execution as the property of deceased debtor = ALE NAGA PULLAMMA & 8 OTHERS VS KOPPARAPU VENU GOPAL = Published in http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CRP&mno=1470&year=2013

Or. 21, rule 54,66 and T.P. Act Gift - No mutation - whether the estate of deceased debtor ? = Estate of Deceased debtor - Gift in year 1965 infavour of wife but no mutation of entries - No proof of acceptance of Gift - it forms part of estate - liable to be sold in execution as the property of deceased debtor =

During the pendency of the suits, the sole defendant Poli Reddy died. The petitioners being his successors, were impleaded as defendants in the suits. The suits were decreed with the specific directions to recover the decretal amounts from the estate of late Poli Reddy.

The respondents/plaintiffs filed E.Ps. for recovery of money through the sale of the E.P. schedule property, which was claimed to have been gifted in the year 1965 in favour of petitioner No.1 who is one of the two wives of late Poli Reddy. It is the pleaded case of petitioner No.1 that as the gift deed was executed and registered as far back as the year 1965, it ceases to be a part of the estate of late Poli Reddy and therefore the same cannot be sold in execution.

The Court below however took the view that as no mutation has taken place in favour of petitioner No.1 in respect of the property covered by the gift deed, the same cannot be said to have been acted upon.

The settled legal position is that to constitute a valid gift, the donee must accept the same. If petitioner No.1 has accepted the gift in question, the property covered thereby would have been mutated in her name.

In the absence of any evidence proving acceptance of the gift by petitioner No.1, it cannot be said that the registered gift deed stated to have been executed by Poli Reddy was acted upon.

Consequently, the property covered by the gift deed continued to be the part of the estate of Poli Reddy. The Court below has therefore rightly rejected the plea of the petitioners.

CRP 1470 / 2013

CRPSR 8037 / 2013

PETITIONER

RESPONDENT

ALE NAGA PULLAMMA & 8 OTHERS

VS

KOPPARAPU VENU GOPAL

PET.ADV. : SUBBA REDDY

RESP.ADV. :

SUBJECT: C.P.C.

DISTRICT: KRISHNA

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY

C.R.P.Nos.1468, 1470, 1472 and 1476 of 2013

Date : 5-6-2013

C.R.P.No.1468/2013

Between:

Alle Naga Pullamma and others .. Petitioners

And

Kopparapu Sri Sivakama Sundaramma .. Respondent

Counsel for petitioner : Smt. A. Harija for Sri M. Subba Reddy

Counsel for respondents : --

The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER:

These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of separate but identical orders passed in separate suits in which the petitioners are the defendants.

The petitioners are the legal heirs of one Alle Poli Reddy against whom suits for recovery of money were filed by different plaintiffs, who are respondents in these revision petitions. During the pendency of the suits, the sole defendant Poli Reddy died. The petitioners being his successors, were impleaded as defendants in the suits. The suits were decreed with the specific directions to recover the decretal amounts from the estate of late Poli Reddy.

The respondents/plaintiffs filed E.Ps. for recovery of money through the sale of the E.P. schedule property, which was claimed to have been gifted in the year 1965 in favour of petitioner No.1 who is one of the two wives of late Poli Reddy. It is the pleaded case of petitioner No.1 that as the gift deed was executed and registered as far back as the year 1965, it ceases to be a part of the estate of late Poli Reddy and therefore the same cannot be sold in execution.

The Court below however took the view that as no mutation has taken place in favour of petitioner No.1 in respect of the property covered by the gift deed, the same cannot be said to have been acted upon.

After hearing Smt. A. Harija, learned counsel representing Sri M. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the reasoning of the Court below does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error. The settled legal position is that to constitute a valid gift, the donee must accept the same. If petitioner No.1 has accepted the gift in question, the property covered thereby would have been mutated in her name.

In the absence of any evidence proving acceptance of the gift by petitioner No.1, it cannot be said that the registered gift deed stated to have been executed by Poli Reddy was acted upon.

Consequently, the property covered by the gift deed continued to be the part of the estate of Poli Reddy. The Court below has therefore rightly rejected the plea of the petitioners.

For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the revision petitions and they are accordingly dismissed.

As a sequel, CRPMP Nos.2011, 2013, 2015 and 2019 of 2013 filed in the respective revision petitions for interim reliefs, are disposed of as infructuous.

The Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Chandra Kumar Appeal Suit No.144 of 2012 Dated 9th August, 2012Judgment: The appellant filed this appeal challenging Order, dated27-01-2012, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, refusing to register the suit filed by him on the ground that the same is barred by limitation . The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance basing on agreement of sale, dated 13-11-2008. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, the balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs out of the total sale price of Rs.9 lakhs was to be paid within two months from the date of expiry of the limitation of the said agreement of sale. The case of the appellant is that though he had been requesting the respondent to receive the balance sale consideration and register the sale deed in his favour, the respondent did not come forward; that therefore, he got issued a legal notice to the respondent on12-10-2011; that the respondent acknowled…

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable =in VadirajNaggappa Vernekar (deceased by L.Rs) v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate (supra), it is held as follows: "17. It is now well settled that the power to recall any witness underOrder 18 Rule 17 CPC can be exercised by the Court either on its own motion oron an application filed by any of the parties to the suit, but as indicatedhereinabove, such power is to be invoked not to fill up the lacunae in theevidence of the witness which has already been recorded but to clear anyambiguity that may have arisen during the course of his examination. Of course,if the evidence on re-examination of a witness has a bearing on the ultimatedecision of the suit, it is always within the discretion of the Trial Court topermit recall of such a witness for re-examination-in-chief with permis…

The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.101 of 2011 in the Court of III
Additional District Judge, Tirupati against the appellants and respondents 2 to
5 herein, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule
property, a hotel at Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. He pleaded that the land
on which the hotel was constructed was owned by the appellants and respondents 2
and 3, and his wife by name Saroja, and all of them gave the property on lease
to M/s. Swarna Restaurant Private Limited, 4th respondent herein, under a
document …